The first. I think you've got it.
Robby
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Stevie Strickland <sstrickl at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
>> No, actually in this case the user message is also wrong. If you trace
>> thru the module dag, you'll see it.
>> Just to check, are you talking about the second series of modules, or the first? The problem in the first is likely a variation of PR11084, as Ryan said. In the second, I get:
>> contract violation: expected <integer?>, given: 3.5
> contract on f from (file /Users/sstrickl/c.rkt) via (file /Users/sstrickl/a.rkt), blaming (file /Users/sstrickl/b.rkt)
> contract: (-> integer? integer?)
> at: /Users/sstrickl/c.rkt:4.1
>> and if I'm breaking that text down correctly, that's:
>> positive: c
> user: a
> negative: b
>> Which seems right to me, according to what I said. That is, b entered into a contract with c about value f. b reprovided f (with no contract) to a, who actually used the value via the expression `(f 3.5)'.
>> So a misused the value, but b was responsible for its misuse (since it gave it to a without any additional protection). This is, of course, going by the interpretation of uncontracted reprovides being equivalent to reproviding with the contract any/c.
>> Have I missed anything here?
>> Stevie